Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 289–297 | Cite as

Similarity and preferences in the space of simple lotteries

  • J. M. Aizpurua
  • T. Ichiishi
  • J. Nieto
  • J. R. Uriarte
Article

Abstract

A. Rubinstein's similarity-relation approach to decision making under uncertainty is extended by introducing a new concept of correlated similarity relations. It is shown that every expected utility preference is consistent with the ε-difference similarity relation on the prize space and some correlated similarity relations on the probability space, and that a similarity relation on the prize space and correlated similarity relations on the probability space overdetermine the preference (in A. Rubinstein's sense).

Key words

decision simple lotteries correlated similarity relations 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aizpurua, J. M., J. Nieto, and J.R. Uriarte. (1990). “Choice Procedure Consistent with Similarity Relations,”Theory and Decision 29: 235–254.Google Scholar
  2. Aizpurua, J. M., T. Ichiishi, J. Nieto and J. R. Uriarte. (1989). “Decision Making Under Risk: Non-Transitive Indifferences and Correlated Similarities,” Working Paper DT 9102LG, Departamento de Economá, Universidad Pública de Navarra-Nafarroako Unibertsitate Publikoa, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. Armstrong, W. E. (1939). “The Determinateness of the Utility Function,”Economic Journal 49: 453–467.Google Scholar
  4. Armstrong, W. E. (1948). “Uncertainty and the Utility Function,”Economic Journal 58:1–10.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, M., J.Y. Jaffray, and T. Said. (1985). “Individual Behavior under Risk and Under Uncertainty: An Experimental Study,”Theory and Decision 18: 203–228.Google Scholar
  6. Fishburn, P. C. (1970). “Intransitive Indifference in Preference Theory: A Survey,”Operations Research 18: 207–228.Google Scholar
  7. Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1936). “The Pure Theory of Consumer's Behavior,”Quarterly Journal of Economics 50:545–593.Google Scholar
  8. Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1958). “Threshold in Choice and the Theory of Demand,”Econometrica 26:157–168.Google Scholar
  9. Luce, R. D. (1956). “Semiorders and a Theory of Utility Discrimination,”Econometrica 24:178–191.Google Scholar
  10. Rubinstein, A. (1988). “Similarity and Decision-Making Under Risk (Is There a Utility Theory Resolution to the Allais Paradox?),”Journal of Economic Theory 46: 145–153.Google Scholar
  11. Tversky, A. (1969). “Intransitivity of Preferences,”Psychological Review 76 (1): 31–48.Google Scholar
  12. Tversky, A. (1977). “Features of Similarity,”Psychological Review 84 (4): 327–352.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. M. Aizpurua
    • 1
  • T. Ichiishi
    • 2
  • J. Nieto
    • 1
  • J. R. Uriarte
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de EconomíaUniversidad Pública de Navarra-Nafarroako Unibertsitate PublikoaPamplonaSpain
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsOhio State UniversityColumbus

Personalised recommendations